Our View: A voice of reason in Capitol access debate

Finally, a voice of reason in the tussle over what constitutes a legal gathering at the state Capitol.

Federal Judge William Conley ruled this week that groups of up to 20 people can gather in the state Capitol without a permit. The current access policy requires a permit for all activities and was enacted in December 2011 following massive protests over Gov. Scott Walker's proposal that basically ended collective bargaining for most public workers.

That policy was reactionary and far too restrictive. The American Civil Liberties Union, which doesn't always choose worthy causes, did so in this case. It challenged a policy that basically tries to block access to the Capitol save for all but the most sterile encounters involving lobbyists, tour groups and previously permitted events.

"The current permitting requirement sweeps in an enormous amount of ordinary activities that are unlikely to present any significant disturbance in the Capitol," Conley wrote.

It is difficult to fault the Walker administration and Capitol police for seeking to tighten access after thousands of people descended upon the Capitol to protest the governor's budget policies in 2011. It was unprecedented in Wisconsin history and not likely to be repeated any time soon. Making changes to Capitol policy based on those gatherings was hasty and politically opportunistic.

The administration sought to nip in the bud any mass protests that might emanate from its future policies by severely limiting access to the Capitol.

The right to assemble - even in protest - is guaranteed by the Constitution and should not be amended lightly at the state or local level. Those protesting Walker's policies were, at times, admittedly obnoxious. They were over the top in many of their tactics. That does not mean, however, that they did not have the right to express their views in a mass setting at the Capitol.

Many would have preferred if they had stayed home to write letters to the governor and other lawmakers, or chosen other staid measures. That didn't happen and the often ugly protests were national news for weeks. Capitol police had their hands full and it is not surprising they sought a policy to restrict the size of gatherings at the Capitol.

But requiring a permit for virtually every activity at the state's government seat was far too restrictive. Conley recognized that and ruled to temporarily relax the restrictions, subject to further rulings on other aspects of the Capitol access policy.

It is a reasonable ruling that strikes a fair balance for visitors to the Capitol - whatever their motivation.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Our View: A voice of reason in Capitol access debate

Finally, a voice of reason in the tussle over what constitutes a legal gathering at the state Capitol.

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Join Our Team!

If you are interested in working for an innovative media company, you can learn more by visiting: